LNG = Liquefied Natural Gas.
'Can' = (short for Canard) ... aka. Ground Water Environmental Protection.
Road = Catering to the Status-quo demands of Fossil Fuel suppliers (and their supporters).
First, some recently significant "hydraulic fracturing" news items ...
Internal EPA report highlights disputes over fracking and well water
by Neela Banerjee, LATimes.com -- July 27, 2013
[...]
The [internal EPA PowerPoint] presentation, based on data collected over 4 1/2 years at 11 wells around Dimock, concluded that "methane and other gases released during drilling (including air from the drilling) apparently cause significant damage to the water quality." The presentation also concluded that "methane is at significantly higher concentrations in the aquifers after gas drilling and perhaps as a result of fracking [hydraulic fracturing] and other gas well work."
[...]
In March 2012, the EPA closed an investigation of methane in drinking water in Parker County, Texas, although the geologist hired by the regulator confirmed that the methane was from gas production. In late June, the EPA dropped a study of possible contamination of drinking water in Pavillion, Wyo., despite its earlier findings of carcinogens, hydrocarbons and other contaminants in the water.
"We don't know what's going on, but certainly the fact that there's been such a distinct withdrawal from three high-profile cases raises questions about whether the EPA is caving to pressure from industry or antagonistic members of Congress," said Kate Sinding of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.
[...]
My my, that EPA
linkage between hydraulic fracturing operations and local ground-water contamination, could be
kind of inconvenient for Fossil Fuel interests,
creating all those jobs?
Queue the psudeo-science outrage and bluster machine -- They're Outraged at the EPA, as per their usual script:
GOP slams EPA on ‘fracking’ as committee leader weighs bill
by Ben Geman, thehill.com -- 07/24/13
House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is weighing legislation to alter the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) study on the impact of oil-and-gas “fracking” on drinking water.
Smith, who said the EPA has been “complicit” in efforts to undercut gas production enabled by hydraulic fracturing, said he fears the study’s design does not put risks in their proper context.
“I am concerned that the EPA has failed to include a risk assessment as part of this study, instead choosing to simply identify potential risk without providing any context or consideration of their likelihood,” Smith said at a committee hearing Wednesday, adding this makes the study less objective and useful.
“The agency should base its work on sound science rather than regulatory ambition. However, if the agency fails to do this, a legislative remedy may be warranted to address the study’s deficiencies,” Smith added.
[...]
"
Sound Science" is in the eye of the
lobbyist-recipient Beholders, right?
Republicans Propose Bill to Force Changes to EPA Fracking Study
by Alisha Mims, ringoffireradio.com -- August 1, 2013
[...]
Republicans have generally accused the EPA of “overzealous” attempts to link fracking to water pollution. Recently, the EPA has dropped other fracking investigations after concerted efforts by Republicans and industry representatives to make their investigations as difficult as possible.
Last week, the Los Angeles Times released a report based on an EPA PowerPoint, which states that EPA employees in Pennsylvania attempted to warn supervisors and officials that there was concern for water safety due to fracking in Dimock, PA. Despite internal disagreement, the EPA’s results on the Dimock study stated that most of the water sampled was safe to drink and did not “present a health concern.”
After the EPA dropped three recent investigations, Rep. Smith (R-TX) taunted that the EPA was “forced to retract their statements after further scrutiny proved them to be unfounded.”
[...]
And rhetorical 'Cans' were made to be kicked ... afterall.
Congressional committee slams EPA over fracking study
by Malia Rulon Herman, stargazette.com -- Jul 24, 2013
[...]
The EPA defended its work, saying all agency funded research projects must comply with rigorous quality assurance requirements.
“The EPA is committed to ensuring scientific integrity in its research, and is conducting this study consistent with the agency’s scientific integrity policy and with the six principles laid out by Congress when it requested that EPA conduct this study,” said Fred Hauchman, director of the EPA Office of Science Policy.
[...]
[pg 2]
But Republicans on the panel singled out a separate EPA investigation in 2011 that initially blamed the controversial practice of fracking for water contamination in Pavillion, Wyo., only to retreat from the findings last month.
“EPA’s recent announcement that it is walking away from its attempt to link hydraulic fracturing to groundwater issues in Wyoming is the most recent example of the agency employing what I consider a ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ policy towards unconventional oil-and-gas production,” said Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, chairman of the Environment Subcommittee.
[...]
As opposed to the Republican's ‘
Drill first, check the groundwater later’ policy, eh Mr Stewart? I know, I know, you guys
would rather NOT check it at all. My bad.
Oil Barron 'Cans' were made to be kicked down the road too.
Kicked all the way down to the 2016 Road. Six years for an important Environment Study on Water Quality to draw its conclusions? That seems kind of excessive, don't you think?
By then (2016) there may be no more 'Quality Water' left to protect -- not at the rate they've been drilling, anyways.
EPA Pushes Back Fracking Impact Study To 2016
by Trisha Marczak, mintpressnews.com -- June 20, 2013
The Environmental Protection Agency is moving back its timeline for release of its study on the impact of hydraulic fracturing from 2014 to 2016, the agency announced this week at the Shale Gas: Promises and Challenges conference in Cleveland, Ohio.
The study, aimed at assessing the threats fracking poses to groundwater supplies and air quality, began in 2010 under the direction of Congress. The intent was to create a thorough assessment of the drilling method so states could make informed decisions on whether to ban fracking or regulate the industry.
[...]
In June 2012, there were more than 680,000 fracking wells throughout the country, according to a Scientific American report — and there’s no sign of it slowing down. By 2018, North America’s daily supply of oil will be 3.9 million barrels higher than it was in 2012, according to the International Energy Agency.
This expansion of the industry will happen before the EPA study can provide guidance on the possibility of water contamination from the fracking process, which injects a combination of water, chemicals and silica sand deep into the earth to break up formation where oil is locked. The concern is that, once injected, those chemicals will seep into the groundwater supply.
[...]
Guidance? -- Smuidance! There's a buck to be made ... maybe a few
billion trillion of them.
Afterall 'the World' wants our LNG. The Markets want, what the Markets want.
Who are WE to stand in the way of "Progress"? Who are WE to argue with 'the World'?
Who are WE to worry about Ground Water? (Big Oil can't yet sell that for a profit, can they?)
LNG Exports: The Global Thirst for North American Shale Gas
bentekenergy.com
The rapid pace of unconventional gas production growth in North America is about to transform the liquefied natural gas (LNG) import business into an export business, with important consequences for both the North American and global gas markets.
BENTEK’s Market Alert, LNG Exports: The Global Thirst for North American Shale Gas explains that North American LNG exports will be necessary as global LNG demand is expected to grow 39% (12.9 Bcf/d) over the next five years, faster than the projected 27% (8.5 Bcf/d) global gas supply growth. Consequently, the global LNG market is expected to tighten, providing an incentive for North American suppliers to export LNG.
[...]
The Status-quo demands of Propane suppliers are very much on the rise too:
Propane Prices Are Set To Rebound Sharply In 2013 -- seekingalpha.com
Luckily (or not so luckily) we do have a "transparent" regulatory process that monitors many "factors" -- before they decide to expand our Global LNG Footprints:
The Department of Energy's Role in Liquefied Natural Gas Export Applications
November 8, 2011
DOE’s authority to regulate the export of natural gas arises under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 USC 717b, and section 301(b) of the DOE Organization Act, 42 USC 7151. That authority is vested in the Secretary of Energy and has been delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.
[...]
There are currently 15 countries with which the United States has in place free trade agreements that require national treatment for trade in natural gas. These 15 countries include:
Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Peru, and Singapore.
[...]
For applications requesting authority to export LNG to countries that do not have free trade agreements requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, DOE conducts a full public interest review. A wide range of criteria are considered as part of DOE’s public interest review process, including:
-- Domestic need for the natural gas proposed for export
-- Adequacy of domestic natural gas supply
-- U.S. energy security
-- Impact on the U.S. economy (GDP), consumers, and industry
-- Jobs creation
-- U.S. balance of trade
-- International considerations
-- Environmental considerations
-- Consistency with DOE’s long-standing policy of promoting competition in the marketplace through free negotiation of trade arrangements
-- Other issues raised by commenters and/or interveners deemed relevant to the proceeding
DOE’s review of applications to export LNG to non-free trade agreement countries is conducted through a publicly transparent process. Upon receipt of an application, DOE issues a notice of the application in the Federal Register, posts the application and all subsequent pleadings and orders in the proceeding on its website, and invites interested persons to participate in the proceeding by intervening and/or filing comments or protests. [...]
Hmmmm, kind of explain the 2016 EPA Can-kick doesn't it ...
Environmental Considerations? ...
WHAT Environmental considerations!?
Release the latest Dept of Energy self-congratulatory, can-do PR statement:
Energy Department Authorizes Third Proposed Facility to Export Liquefied Natural Gas
August 7, 2013
The development of U.S. natural gas resources is having a transformative impact on the U.S. energy landscape, helping to improve our energy security while spurring economic development and job creation around the country. This increase in domestic natural gas production is expected to continue, with the Energy Information Administration forecasting a record production rate of 69.96 Bcf/d in 2013.
[...]
THAT is how one
kicks the LNG 'can' way down to the 2016 Road ... Leaving it for those "next guys" to solve. The lucky stiffs ... "it sucks to be them" ...
Bon appetit! Future guys and gals ... They've set quite the spread for you.
[ Source -- Start day with a glass of water and maintain the vitality -- healthyfresh.org ]
It's only water ... they can make more, right? (Maybe the can distill it, from the 'L' in LNG?)